The following is lifted from "The Confessional Outhouse." I was able to chase down the citation - it is from F. F. Bruce's "Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free" (Amazon/Google Books), p. 189. Note Bruce's words on what Paul "insisted" on. He insisted that our lives be governed by the law of love, not "prudential rules and regulations." Does this lead to antinomianism, to liscentiousness? Bruce implies that moralists of his day and ours would say yes, but that Paul would say no.
“This insistence on the law of love, instead of prudential rules and regulations, was felt by many of Paul’s Christian contemporaries to come unrealistically near to encouraging moral indifferentism; and many Christians since his day have shared their sentiments. But, unlike Paul’s contemporary critics, Christian moralists since Paul’s day have tended to hold that, in insisting on prudential rules and regulations, they are following the implications of his teaching, if not his express judgments. But we should appreciate that Paul conforms no more to the conventions of religious people today than he conformed to the conventions of religious people around A.D. 50; it is best to let Paul be Paul. And when we do that, we shall recognize in him the supreme libertarian, the great herald of Christian freedom, insisting that man in Christ has reached his spiritual majority and must no longer be confined to the leading-strings of infancy but enjoy the birthright of the freeborn sons of God. Here if anywhere Luther entered into the mind of Paul: “A Christian man is a most free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian man is a most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” “Subject to none” in respect of his liberty; “subject to all” in respect of his charity. This, for Paul, is the law of Christ because this was the way of Christ. And in this way, for Paul, the divine purpose underlying Moses’ law is vindicated and accomplished.”
Recent Comments